Unlike you, I actually live in the province. I can tell you that the possible separation of Quebec is not just, nor even mostly, a legal or constitutional question. It is above all a political and hence potentially very emotional question.

It is not certain that Pauline Marois, as premier, will fail to put a clear referendum question to Quebecers, as you assume. If the wind is in her sails, why wouldn’t she put a clear question?

Neither is it certain, as you also assume, that Quebecers in 2013 or 2014 would answer No to such a clear question. It is quite possible that they may answer Yes, and in sufficient numbers to satisfy the Clarity Act.

If they do, it is no use telling them that their vote doesn’t matter and that “Canada” will simply choose to ignore it. It is no use saying that we have nobody that they can negotiate with, so they should forget it (and just go away?).

If we follow the rule of law, there would indeed have to be a “Canadian” negotiating body struck, and the conclusions of any negotiations might well have to be submitted to a “Canadian” referendum, as you suggest. And if such a referendum rejected the terms, that would simple exacerbate opinion in Quebec.

You blithely assert that a Jacques Parizeau-style unilateral declaration of independence could not possibly succeed, and you give a host of rational and erudite reasons why this is so. But this will be decided as much by emotion as by reason, so do not be too sure. Remember that history has often shown that good government is no substitute for self-government, however costly or irrational that course of action may be. And Quebecers believe, quite logically, that if they agreed to join Confederation in 1867, then they certainly have the right to reverse that decision if enough of them want to. After all, except for First Nations, they were here long before the rest of us.

A Quebec referendum is simply a general election writ large, with only two parties, and with the whole province as a single constituency. I have lived through two of them (three if you count Charlottetown).

As in any election, as much depends on the leadership as on the question itself. At present, all federalist politicians in Quebec, with the possible exception of Maxime Bernier, are highly unpopular. The federal government and prime minister are even more unpopular here. If Jean Charest retires as Liberal leader, presumably his successor will lead the No campaign. I find it difficult to imagine that person (there is no obvious candidate) being highly favoured to beat a Yes campaign headed by madame Marois and all the usual suspects. And with the best will in the world, Stephen Harper cannot play the role that prime minister Jean Chrétien played in 1995.

It is unwise for national pundits, however well-intentioned, to promote a false sense of security about the future of our country. One day Pollyanna may have a rude awakening.

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.